Near as I can tell his politics are vaguely libertarian

My point is, that according to his close friends, he is a libertarian, and a pretty consistent one. I point out I probably agree with him on most things as well, you just more so (given you have a less favorable view towards continuing the war in Iraq.) See:

we agree on policy far, far more than we disagree

So I wasn’t trying to get in a backhanded jab at you (though I do realize I do that on occasion, though it is usually an attempt to let my inner homophobe out:^)

It is hard to tell, since he is so busy playing to his audience that he refuses to put the many areas which would anger them out in front. Of course it wouldn’t surprise me if that is really just a pose given his general behavior. It doesn’t matter, that aspect of him is filled with dishonesty as well whatever the truth is.

In fact, that you and I can agree quite strongly over Iraq while not hating each other (quite the opposite; I respect your acumen, and find it damned frustrating at times) should speak to the fact that I don’t buy into GG’s “politics of personal destruction” (if I may borrow the phrase). To contrast: I simply find Bush a disastrous president, and the war(s) close to ruinous thanks to a seemingly willful incompetence by his Cabinet officials. That’s a far cry from the seething, grinding hatred—which I think goes a long way toward explaining GG’s hyperbole, disingenuousness, and penchant for ad hominem attack—GG displays on a daily basis.

I understood Lance to mean what you are stating — i.e. that it’s obvious you don’t ascribe to GG’s politics of personal destruction, even if you do find that you are both on the same side of many political issues.

“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”
- Napoleon Bonaparte

A sentiment I try to live by when viewing politicians, bureaucrats, and union workers…

“Joshua knows that and he agrees with GG’s politics overall.”

Umm, what? Since when? Near as I can tell his politics are vaguely libertarian (which you would agree with “overall” as well), and hating Bush and his followers with near-religious zealotry. I don’t do the latter. In fact, that you and I can agree quite strongly over Iraq while not hating each other (quite the opposite; I respect your acumen, and find it damned frustrating at times) should speak to the fact that I don’t buy into GG’s “politics of personal destruction” (if I may borrow the phrase). To contrast: I simply find Bush a disastrous president, and the war(s) close to ruinous thanks to a seemingly willful incompetence by his Cabinet officials. That’s a far cry from the seething, grinding hatred—which I think goes a long way toward explaining GG’s hyperbole, disingenuousness, and penchant for ad hominem attack—GG displays on a daily basis.

Sounds to me what y’all are really upset about is that his politics don’t align with yours and not because of any outrageous behavior on his part.

We do disagree with his politics on certain issues. However, that is not what we don’t like about him. I disagree with Bob From Brockley, but we get along just fine. I disagree with Norm Geras, but we get along just fine. I disagree specifically with Joshua about the war (which if you haven’t noticed makes GG’s characterization of him laughable) yet he blogs here. There are bloggers I would love have come join our little merry team who I have large differences with.

As hard as Josh and I debate we don’t have contempt for each other, and we both think GG is a dishonest, sloppy, cretin. Joshua knows that and he agrees with GG’s politics overall. Vicious smears, misrepresentations and other dishonest tactics are the problem (which makes his complaints of snideness all the more laughable) not that we disagree with him. In fact, if GG’s claims of about his politics are accurate (though he seems to avoid like the plague writing about those many other areas, probably because he worries what the audience he has cultivated would think) we agree on policy far, far more than we disagree. In fact, I am probably closer to his views than the majority of his audience. The fact that he is so often referred to as “left” by so many on the “progressive” side of the blogosphere shows that he has either hoodwinked them, or hoodwinked us, or both. That disconnect kind of goes to the heart of what he is all about.

Didn’t the original writer make it personal?

No, GG has made specific personal attacks upon both he, his commander and their offices. GG made it personal, though possibly Boylan shouldn’t have gotten personal in response.

What if it was a Democrat who started the Iraq war? Would y’all still be so eager to support it?

Uh, I ain’t a Republican friend or a conservative. You, like Greenwald assume too much.

I am not eager to support any war, and I wasn’t on this one. That is part of the problem with the puppet, he just decides he knows what motivates people, finds whatever he can to illustrate it, no matter how out of context, and then moves on. I am committed to continuing this war, at this point. GG cannot accept that without smearing people. Joshua is ready to end it. We both can’t stand The Sock.

As for supporting a Democrat in wartime, I have been there and done that, even when I wasn’t sure the action initially made sense, when I couldn’t stand the said Democrat. I have opposed wars started by Republicans, though I was thrilled to death when they worked out well and held no bitterness or resentment. So no, it isn’t about the party. I don’t even know, is GG a Democrat now?

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think it is because we disagree with his general policy positions. No one here has called him “far left” because from what his friends tell me, he isn’t. He isn’t a leftist at all. I’ll repeat, we can’t stand him because he is a liar, vicious and totally without ethics. He threw his boyfriend under the bus over something petty, if illuminating. I almost felt sorry for him till he pulled that one. Sheesh.

So, do you think the politicization of the media, might have anything to do with the supposed politicization of the military?

Should the PR people in the military leave unanswered facts and opinions which they believe are wrong? Whatever the political leanings of the source?

Or should they let such inaccuracies and half-truths stand as written and hope they will be corrected.

And perhaps, people in Iraq, have less value and respect for reporters and editorialist’s who aren’t there, and yet still seem to know everything. You know, the ones that have a picture in their head of what’s going on, and ignore anything to the contrary.

If it seems personal, well wasn’t it Greenwald who was contacted in the first place? Didn’t the original writer make it personal?

GG made it public and set the tone of the inquisition.

But beyond this particular squabble, isn’t the idea that someone may have made unauthorized use of Boylan’s email account disturbing to you?

We do not know that this occurred and it is a matter for the military to investigate, as ONLY they have control of the servers that mail would have passed through if it were authentically sent. No amount of guessing, poking through email headers, or comparing writing styles is going to result in definitive answers. Only a military board of inquiry will get Boylan on the record.

What about the blatent politicization of not just the military but the Justice Department or indeed the entire Federal bureaucracy?

Oh, you mean like when all the attorneys were fired… or the FBI was being used to gather information on political rivals?

I personally don’t see any politicization of the military. The military maintains several lines of communication with reporters of all ideological stripes. Bloggers of various ideological stripes have been invited to the blogger round table. The archives and transcripts of those discussions are available for the whole world to see.

So where is the politicization?

Petraeus went on Hugh Hewitts show. He’s also been on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS. He also appeared on Alan Colmes radio show, which GG basically requested, to prove that Petraeus wasn’t only appearing on partisan soft-ball throwers shows. And yet, GG still makes the charge that the military is politicized.

As for the politicization of the media, which has been going on for much longer than any of us have been around, Greenwald has written on the subject several times. Besides, this incident isn’t about the politicization of the media, it is about the politicization of the military. If it seems personal, well wasn’t it Greenwald who was contacted in the first place? Didn’t the original writer make it personal?

But beyond this particular squabble, isn’t the idea that someone may have made unauthorized use of Boylan’s email account disturbing to you? What other military communications have been compromised? What about the blatent politicization of not just the military but the Justice Department or indeed the entire Federal bureaucracy? How about fake FEMA press conferences?

What if it was a Democrat who started the Iraq war? Would y’all still be so eager to support it?

Finally, in my opinion, there is no “far left” and no “far right” except with extreme individuals. Most of us have familes and friends and a whole range of opinions on a whole range of issues. So what there really is are only those with money and power and those who cheerlead for them in their desire of money and power. This ideological struggle that America is supposedly going through is nothing more than manufactured controversey, used to divide honest working people and keep their focus off the real enemy who is robbing them blind and sending their children to die in a pointless war – the politicians.

I think you’re all missing the truly important point to this story, which is that I am a garden variety right-wing warmonger.

No, no, no, let’s not mischaracterize what GG said. You are a “right-wing blogger” on a “garden-variety pro-war blog.”

This is so clearly the case that even one right-wing blogger, writing at a garden-variety pro-war blog that typically spews the standard venom characterizing the right-wing blogosphere, wrote this last night

Hmmm, I wonder if that’s supposed to be insulting. We’ve had a garden, and it provided many beautiful, nutritious things and hours of enjoyment to us.

So, can we define GG this way?

“writing at a self-important anti-war blog that typically spews the standard venom characterizing the left-wing blogosphere”

Of course, the problem is in the subjective opinion of people. Some have made a claim, and presented what they think. People are free to agree or disagree, and for those whose minds are made up, no amount of rational argument is likely to change it.

It has been noticed in the past that fans of GG (real and imagined) agree with his side of any issue, no matter what the facts.

The more comical side of the issue just likes poking the sock-puppet with a big stick.

I still think, if someone thinks exploring the politicization of the military is very, very important, they shouldn’t make the issue personal in anyway. That would seem to me to be violating the code of ethics for professional journalists. Additionally, making it about the tone of private communications, seems to me that GG is trying to use “I’M A MEMBER OF THE PRESS, DON’T YOU KNOW HOW IMPORTANT I AM” as an argument. Respect is a two way street, in the long run, it is earned based on ones actions, not on ones position or profession.

Further, I don’t know how you can talk about the politicization of the military, and military/media relations, without also talking about the politicization of the media. That all seems to go hand in hand to me. I think reasonable, and intelligent people would see that.

I really don’t care about the e-mail, it is entertaining for some, just like catching him with his hand in a sock was entertaining for others. He is welcome to spend a lot of time having fun at Boylan’s expense. We surely have at his. What is pathetic is that he believes this is some important event. An illustration of his whole paranoid meme.

I make fun of him because he is so incredibly dishonest, sloppy and mean spirited, but it isn’t important to demonstrate that, except to the extent that it helps people be wary of his claims. Still, peccadillo’s like sock puppetry are just not important. The point is I know that, GG actually believes stuff like this, surrounded by enough paranoid bilge to sink a supertanker, has some larger meaning. Pathetic.

It’s interesting to read everyone’s perceptions of GG. I sure would like to see an example of how he “mischaracterized Boylan’s email to suit his purposes”. Anyone want to step up to that task?

Of course, if any of his minions follow the link (and almost none will) they will of course believe it. He is the master of “poisoning the well.”

Oh, they’ve been clicking through. Not at Instalanche levels or anything, but a few of them have visited.

Here’s my take on Greenwald’s link.

If an anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush blogger can understand and acknowledge what a sloppy, dishonest, cretin I am, anyone should be able to.

You are not going to believe this. You made Glenn Greenwald’s latest post:

This is so clearly the case that even one right-wing blogger, writing at a garden-variety pro-war blog that typically spews the standard venom characterizing the right-wing blogosphere, wrote this last night:

Oh my god! It is one thing for that little crew to tar me as some right-wing, neo-con spewing pro war venom. At least it is true that I support not ending our effort. It has some teeny tiny grain of truth to it, but you? I may be laughing over that for weeks. You right wing warmonger you. What a maroon, what a sloppy cretin the man is. I need to hit my e-mail, everyone needs to get a laugh out of this. McQ will love it.

Or, quietly fixing them before Chris notices.

mike filancia

Boylan’s conduct is especially egregious in light of all the rightwing hysteria around monitoring communications and “keeping us safe” by shredding our constitutional rights. Much like the right wing pooh-poohed the outing of a CIA agent by pretending that she was basically a secretary and, when that didn’t work, just saying it was no big deal. If you are going to trample on my privacy because you have to “keep us safe” then EVERYONE should be subject to the same kind of oversight, especially people that actually may have info that needs to be concealed. After Gonzo-gate, can anyone doubt that this admin and its flunkies are looking to politicze every aspect of government life?

Joe, is that you?

Lance is right. Boylan’s weird denial of an email, and potentially even the military’s relationship with the opposition press (in comparison to its relationship with the supporting press) has nothing to do with civil liberties. It is a question of propriety and ethics, and professionalism. Not freedom.

Noah Shachtman, himself no anti-war nutcase, is another recipient of curiously angry emails from Col. Boylan.

I don’t see where you get that Boylan is angry in this email? He is disagreeing with the implication that collateral damage has been raised, saying that the data isn’t there to prove or disprove it.

I’m sure the data could be collected to show how many air strikes were in populated areas, vs lightly populated areas, but it isn’t in evidence in the articles/editorials quoted. So the conclusion is premature.

As for the rest of the kerfluffle. I think the issue of politicization of the military, and the media, and the relationship between the two, is one very worthy of discussion. But, GG has effectively drawn the issue around to why is a member of the military treating a member of the press with a snide attitude. And is making this a personal issue, rather then an organization issue.

I don’t care what attitude Boylan takes in an email, as long as any information he conveys is truthful.

If he treats hostile members of the press with some hostility, it may be unprofessional, but then the members of the press are also being unprofessional.

Thanks!

then reacting with apathy at the apparent identity theft implications of such a statement? That’s a tough cookie to chew… and I like cookies, so that makes me cranky.

I have no idea what is going is going on with that, and if he is really claiming he didn’t send it and did, well that is pretty childish (though I am curious how sock puppets can stand to publicize it. I think it is something you just might want to let lie just for decency’s sake. If I were Bill Clinton I certainly wouldn’t attack my opponent for lack of fealty toward his marriage.)

I will say I don’t agree with this complaint, though I understand where it is coming from. The problem is judging whether he is blase’ about it from the e-mails to Glenn. Whether he sent it or not, he obviously despises Glenn, a readily understandable emotion. If, as he says, he has had his e-mail hijacked he may be busy dealing with that, and simultaneously not wish to discuss it with Glenn, and frankly wonder what Glenn is up to, laced with generous helpings of mistrust.

But denying he sent it, then reacting with apathy at the apparent identity theft implications of such a statement? That’s a tough cookie to chew… and I like cookies, so that makes me cranky.

Even if it’s something as simple as someone walking in his office and dashing off identically-phrased emails that so perfectly mimic his phrasing as to trick people into thinking it’s him… umm, then what the hell kind of facilities management do they have there? Even the lowest of security levels and the barest of computer policies would require tight monitoring of who gets access to his account.

… with Col. Boylan’s identifying marks on it that Col. Boyland denies sending. Indeed, either Col. Boylan feels regret at having sent them, which is just childish, or someone spoofed his email address, which is a vastly more serious problem. And Boylan’s apparent casual attitude lends the impression of wrongdoing on his part.

I must admit, I’m rather curious about this part as well. While Greenwald mischaracterized the email to suit his purposes, I’m bewildered as to why Boylan would deny sending it, especially since it was as a private individual. The identity theft angle is just a bit too much to swallow, IMHO.